Forum:TTTB/Delete the BOSS
Forums: Index > LIKE A BOSS! > Hi there, I'm here to discuss about the BOSS. Wikis were not designed to be run by a cabal of administrators, or for that matter, experienced editors. Policies and guidelines should achieve a consensus before they come into effect, and should be written down in project space for all to see. They should be designed to improve the wiki, but can be ignored in cases when they are not accomplishing this task. All users should be able to participate in the development of policies, and in other discussions. There should be no power structure of any sort. Administrators are not "higher" than regular users in any way, other than having access to administrator tools. Likewise, bureaucrats are not higher than administrators, except again that they have access to bureaucrat tools. Users are not given special rights or privileges on the basis of "seniority." All editors are equal. By having this "BOSS" propaganda, you are singling yourselves out. All things related to BOSS should be wiped from this wiki, and the titles of sysop and bureaucrat should be changed back to sysop and bureaucrat. I noticed the Bylaws as well, and I don't really see why Explorer and TS need to be singled out in the rules. Wikis aren't supposed to be a democracy, but rather based upon consensus, not polling. When contributing to a discussion, an argument should be given for your point of view, instead of simply voting. Others will then respond to your argument, and eventually a consensus should be reached one way or another. Once all arguments have been made and responded to, the discussion may be closed by an administrator or bureaucrat, regardless of the time elapsed since the nomination. Closing administrators (for votes for deletion) or bureaucrats (requests for adminship) are given limited discretion in determining whether a consensus has been reached in a discussion. If you feel that the decision made was poor or did not reflect consensus, you can appeal the decision on the closer's talk page, or at another community process. Decisions should never be made simply on the basis of majority vote. Remember, all rules - be they from here or any other site, are just generalized guidelines. You don't have to follow them if you don't think it isn't improving the wiki. Common sense overrides rules. http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/1254/lockkey.png [[User:Z_K|'ZoneKill']] [[User_talk:Z_K|'T']] 02:37, July 25, 2010 (UTC) Comments YES. THIS IS PERFECT. --[[User:Austin8310|'Austin8310']]-YOU MAGGOTS!-Private Eastshield 03:06, July 25, 2010 (UTC) *I approve of your argument. Sounds to me like you have some new rules you want to implement into the wiki, hmm? BugzyTalk 07:33, July 25, 2010 (UTC) **AN AGENDA! I knew it! --† TurtleShroom™! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! † :) :) CREPE MYRTLES. † 20:59, July 25, 2010 (UTC) :I wouldn't really go that far yet unless I was asked to draft up some rules. If I took control of the rules of this site, I'd wipe out democracy and put in a consensus system, along with several other changes that some people might like, while some people might hate. That's why I'd have the consensus system; we can all work together to reach something everyone can agree on. That way, everyone's voice is heard and it isn't just a "vote then leave" policy that democracy has. :An example of consensus would be that time where User:Ninjinian wasn't happy with the previous Featuredarticle template system because it was randomized. Eventually, we all reached a compromise and made two sections on the main page - one for the current featured article and one for the past featured article. You can read about it here. http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/1254/lockkey.png [[User:Z_K|'ZoneKill']] [[User_talk:Z_K|'T']] 07:55, July 25, 2010 (UTC) Category:Congress * I know we ain't Walri but TS is given me LOLZ.-- Firmato per Il Dirigente Conversazione verso Il Dirigente 20:17, July 25, 2010 (UTC) *One who claims they don't have to obey rules "if it helps the wiki" is calling for nullification of the rules. Rules are made to be FOLLOWED. Rules can never be nullified. If you want this "consensus" thing to work, you'd better have some method to protect core values like the decency and cleanliness mandates from ever being challenged. --† TurtleShroom™! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! † :) :) CREPE MYRTLES. † 20:55, July 25, 2010 (UTC) **Appealling a rule would end to never-ending battles to get something passed. It should be final, not endlessly questionable. Compromises are hard to make on the Internet, and it will always degenerate into a flame war. --† TurtleShroom™! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! † :) :) CREPE MYRTLES. † 20:57, July 25, 2010 (UTC) * Leader's commentary disturbs me deeply. --† TurtleShroom™! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! † :) :) CREPE MYRTLES. † 21:07, July 25, 2010 (UTC) *I don't know about this. Wonderweez · Chat · Blog ( · ) 21:21, July 25, 2010 (UTC)Wonderweez *This sounds a little too much like Communism. WIth "all editors being equal" and their being now BOSS. I don't think this will work. What makes this wiki great is the community. ----[[User:judge Konquer|'judge Konquer']]-[[User talk:Judge Konquer|'ORDER IN THE COURT!!!]]'-. *I don't get it. You all hated me and even wrote articles about me and mass-voted against me. What's this? CPFW goes Tigernose? Are you guys mad??? No but really, this is the right thing to do. However I'm not going to suggest new changes at all, I keep my word, I'm only going to be dwelling in the comments section. --Tigernose Talk 21:05, July 25, 2010 (UTC) :*AMERICA! THE HOME OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH! Thank you TS for removing my comment. I didn't even break any rules, I didn't vote. --Tigernose Talk 21:16, July 25, 2010 (UTC) ::*Yep, you just can't stop. --Tigernose Talk 22:05, July 25, 2010 (UTC) :::*Yep. We're goin Tigernose. Honestly, I REALLY LIKE your rules. That's where the UnBOSS Bill came from. --[[User:Austin8310|'Austin8310']]-YOU MAGGOTS!-Private Eastshield 12:01, July 26, 2010 (UTC) * Can we still be promoted to Sysop???? KingH10 ;^) Talk to me, I hardly get any messages! My Blogs! Play KingH10's Favourite Online Game! 09:09, July 26, 2010 (UTC) *I tried to do the awesome face when I listened to Zone's Speech,below.--12yz12ab Talk to me 17:59, July 29, 2010 (UTC) ---- http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/1254/lockkey.png [[User:Z_K|'ZoneKill']] [[User_talk:Z_K|'T']] 21:43, July 28, 2010 (UTC) --> :Before I say anything else, I wouldn't block you if this consensus fails. Your benefits to this wiki far outnumber both your trolling past and your call to dissolve the BOSS. Unlike, say, AgentGenius, you have a sincere goal to reform the database and assist with its growth. As for your speech: you have a sweet accent and have presented a beautiful rebuke to my speech. For this and your outstanding logic, I commend you. I agree with several of your points, though I still stand to my belief that we should write our own rules by our own people under the consensus of the Masses, with no copy-and-paste or outside influence. What may really be driving all all of this is a hatred of copying and pasting rules and becoming just another site (like what killed the CPW in my view). I was gradually banished and silenced from the CPW through a long process that concluded with my demotion from Sysop to nothing. I, as Explorer said, am a paranoid man and I keep fearing for both my position and the holiness clauses. However, your logic stating that common sense enforces the G/PG mandate was beautifully worried and very relaxing to my nerves. Perhaps this could work... -but I insists that we write our own rules without copying and pasting. --† TurtleShroom™! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! † :) :) Wake up! † 16:07, July 29, 2010 (UTC) :P.S.: My goal isn't to cause a Crisis, my goal is to fearmonger the Masses with my opinions. I honestly believe my own speech and actually perceive everything I said to be true. Also, as to calling you brilliant and intelligent, hey, I call it like it is. - TS Yes (15) #YES. THIS IS PERFECT. --[[User:Austin8310|'Austin8310']]-YOU MAGGOTS!-Private Eastshield 03:06, July 25, 2010 (UTC) #I approve of your argument. Sounds to me like you have some new rules you want to implement into the wiki, hmm? BugzyTalk 07:33, July 25, 2010 (UTC) #I LOVE YOU. Also, bylaws and this constitution crap are complex: the COC works fine, though it does need a good sort, maybe some trimming down of policies that are useless. --[[User:Zapwire|'Zapwire']] (dial the waaaambulance) 11:01, July 25, 2010 (UTC) #Finally! A decision-making system with the same "majority gets what they want" qualities of democracy and the speed and efficiency of a power structure. No more admin wars! ' ' [[User:Explorer 767|'Explorer 767']] ([[User talk:Explorer 767|'OBEY YOUR PROPELLER LORD! MWAHAHA']]) View this template 12:19, July 25, 2010 (UTC) #Wait till TS sees this. He'll go absolutely troppo. I reckon it's a good idea, as long as we make sure everybody gets a say and our site values stay the same.--Sir Kwiksilver of TARDIS-The Fez is now cool. 12:27, July 25, 2010 (UTC) #Yes, yes, yes. I've always wanted to have just sysops, bureaucrats and users - no BOB. That's why I got it changed to BOSS, but I soon started to dislike the idea, but I thought that the majority of you liked it. I believe that the BOSS shall be scraped by the majority of votes we are getting for For and there will only be bureaucrats, sysops, rollbacks and users from now on! Unless there's a better compromise, I think it's sticking with this. Jai Ho! -- ¤ ([[User:Ninjinian|'User page!']]) ([[User talk:Ninjinian|'The Cookie Master, bow!']]) 12:41, July 25, 2010 (UTC) #Delete the BOSS? Well, the BOSS is a bit too complicated. Its just good to have bureaucats and sysops. We don't have to submit ideas to them anymore, and its quite complicated on how the BOSS works. Alex001 OR Alex12345a (inbox ⊛ edits ⊛ blog ⊛ hurtandheal ⊛ imagecontest) 12:47, July 25, 2010 (UTC) #I've tried to get people to delete the BOSS and they've all said no. At least someone has some sense. BOSS = power. You have all these people who have this little title called BOSSMASTER and it shows the respect you have to give. It's a big rank thing. You have the BOSSMASTER no one cares about (me) then the websmasters leaders of the BOSSMASTER (Explorer and TurtleShroom, used to be HF). Karazachi idea of a Wiki is right: users edit, rollbacks rollack, administrators make it go smoothly, B'crats promote and Wikia watch. -- Firmato per Il Dirigente Conversazione verso Il Dirigente 13:01, July 25, 2010 (UTC) #I agree. No more admin wars. Wonderweez · Chat · Blog ( · ) 21:23, July 25, 2010 (UTC)Wonderweez #Finally someone actually started a forum on this. If you pass this, the fanon will be much better. --[[User:Seahorseruler|'Seahorseruler']] (Talk Page) 21:52, July 25, 2010 (UTC) #I agree.-- Sanchonachos Welcome aboard. 02:31, July 26, 2010 (UTC) #Yes, I think you should get rid of the BOSS.Iceflower485 04:28, July 26, 2010 (UTC)Iceflower485Iceflower485 04:28, July 26, 2010 (UTC) #It may attract more people as they wouldn't be policed around. --Frank34.5(talk!|blog| ) 02:31, July 27, 2010 (UTC) #This is a dangerous idea, yet, I think that if it is pulled off, this wiki will become a much better place.--Error 404: Signature not found. Possible reasons why this may have happened are: Not found. 13:49, July 27, 2010 (UTC) ---- No (2) * **--† TurtleShroom™! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! † :) :) Wake up! † 20:15, July 28, 2010 (UTC) :Now that's what keeps my spirits up! Isn't it wonderful to listen to such awe-inspiring speeches about doom, gloom, and destruction? That's what we're living for, here, people! PESSIMISM! And that is what keeps me on this site, and that is how we will move forward together in this era of shame, regret, and overall stupidity! ::But seriously -- TS, that's depressing. Hearing you talk about how this wiki will die and be torn apart and we'll have to rebuild is 1) not good for site morale, 2) slightly... over-exaggerated, if you ask me, 3) not good for site morale, 4) kind of... paranoid? And 5) IT'S NOT GOOD FOR SITE MORALE. Being pessimistic will not get us anywhere, and neither will being overly optimistic. We have to stay focused on what we're doing here and try to make the best of the present situation. First of all, integrating the COC into the current rules. That's going to be the consensus system's first test, and we're going to have to do it sooner or later. Focus, people! The site WILL die if we don't focus! ' ' [[User:Explorer 767|'Explorer 767']] ([[User talk:Explorer 767|'SUCCESS! SUCCESS!']]) View this template 20:31, July 28, 2010 (UTC) :::That was a pretty stupid speech, wasn't it? I liked the sarcastic part more. =P But anyway, we do need to combine the COC (and other previous policies) into the newly instated ones, lest our policy system fall apart altogether. ' ' [[User:Explorer 767|'Explorer 767']] ([[User talk:Explorer 767|'SUCCESS! SUCCESS!']]) View this template 20:37, July 28, 2010 (UTC) *I vote NO! TS IS RIGHT! --Dan Beronews (Talk/Edits/Blog) 20:38, July 28, 2010 (UTC) *I would like to point out that criminals and pirates write there own laws. Look- what you are calling for here is a revalution. Now if this revalution is succsesful then it will probably end up like the french revelution. They made Napoleon Emperor. They brought back the BOSS anyway. ----[[User:judge Konquer|'judge Konquer']]-[[User talk:Judge Konquer|'ORDER IN THE COURT!!!]]'-. *I agree with Turtle. LuXerra Rules!! Just like Flywish does. Talk to me. I have Cookies! 18:12, August 22, 2010 (UTC) Neutral (1) *Sure, it's complicated but I'm just not sure about it yet. 21:17, July 25, 2010 (UTC) * Don't care. It doesn't make sense to me why this is "the apocolypse" or whatever. TS' speech was sort of over dramatic. Zone's however, made sense, but as I have said before, I could really care less about this sort of thing. --Screwball86 15:55, July 30, 2010 (UTC)